Gman_builder

How big is it? Judging by the size of the engines it looks pretty large.

Oh ya. It's 1,738 m/s stock. @Castille7 oh cool! I think you should work on the nose a little bit. Maybe try clipping Mk. 1 cockpits into each other. Other than that looks great!

@Castille7 Is that based after a real plane?

@EpicSpaceTroll139 Your getting close to my speed record! My Aurora tops out at Mach 5.815. Or around 1,900 m/s.

after re reading all of that convo it appears he went back and edited most of his posts. They were all a lot different than they are now.

Tell me about it. I tried to make things right and thats when he left. Like what.

I dont understand

Alrighty then did you read my whole comment?

The fact that you interpreted my words as a put down was not my intention and i am truly sorry, but i never said your designs were pointless. I gave ample examples of why your designs and all other WLB designs need improvement but you haven't acknowledged any of THAT. You also haven't acknowledged the fact that wheeled bearings are, really, superior in raw performance to current WLBs. How hard is that too see. Numbers don't lie. I also fail to see where you said that you are, " ready and willing to experiment with turbo-shafts..." I am assuming you mean you mean the wheeled variant. If am remembering correctly, you said that you haven't made a single turboshaft with wheels since 1.1 launched. " You seem unwilling to even acknowledge the notion that these ideas I have been advocating do not have their own strengths. " Lol wut? I thought you were arguing that they DID have strengths. I also hate for there to be hostilities in the forum and i hate making enemies. I am sorry that you came back to an argument like this. So i am hoping dearly that after this banter clears up, there will be no damage done to our mutual relationship now and in the future. Just think of it as a friendly debate. I try hard not to make personal attacks and always proofread my counter-argument to make sure there are none that i failed to see while writing it.

Doesnt matter. Even with struts, our prop can expand up to 180% or almost double it's size just at initial staging. There was no expansion on that prop. I can judge RPM by looking at blade expansion. If i had to guess that would be somewhere less than 20 rad/s.

Alright your heli is not over sized. But stop comparing it to our stuff. After all, our planes go A lot faster than your helicopter. Personal philosophy can't be used in a technical argument, though i respect your opinion. Why don't we all throw out personal opinion into here, i think all Kerbal replica Aircraft should be Human/real scale and perfectly accurate to the T. That's why i built my Boeing 777-200ER, my RQ-4 Global Hawk, and my Lockheed D-21. You can look at them on my KerbalX page. Bigger size just makes it easier to incorporate high levels of detail and improved functionality. At the expense of part count. But my personal philosophy states that part count and FPS don't matter as long as it look good. See what i mean? But people will never all start building replica planes like that because it doesn't suit them. Just like building Kerbal scale turboprops like you doesn't suit Azimech's and I along with most other people who build them. We go after raw performance rather than aesthetics. (with the exception of Azimech most of the time on the aesthetics part) When i was talking about WLBs vs. WB i wasn't using personal philosophy. I used facts and statistics.

Bruh trust me, the main cannons work great as AA.

EXACTLY. Our planes are NOT MODELED after anything and are not supposed to be kerbal-scale!!!!! They just work and work well! So stop criticizing our stuff over size if you are going to give excuses of why your craft is also over sized. Your Kinchook looks good and i think it is cool, but don't use it to tell us that our stuff is too big.

Ya but he doesn't model them after an actual aircraft. Now that i think about it, why do you even care about size of my engines? You just said yourself you made your heli bigger for less parts. SO why are you criticizing mine for being bigger. After all, according to your logic, bigger means less parts with these things. I literally said 4 times its not impossible to create WLB and never said it is impossible to make one fly fast. I said they are immature and under performing.

I have made turboshafts with tiny gear that achieve 45 rad/s. However i dont really feel like launching the game to get screenshots. We don't use ridiculously large landing gear. I use the largest still steerable wheels for my fastest engines, which hardly over sized compared to how big some stuff in this game gets. Have you considered that your Chinook is about the kerbal scale of the freaking Space Shuttle!???!?!

You can't use pre-1.1 craft as a example of why stuff is broken now. Pre-1.0.5 craft didn't work in 1.0.5 and pre.1.1 craft dont work in 1.1.3. It's that simple. We adapt, and apparently WLBs havn't adapted as quickly as wheeled bearings. All turboshaft - esque craft operate under the law of decreasing return. So that 16 blower craft would have maybe 150% higher RPM. That is some of the problem with these craft, however adding blowers increases torque. So you can fly under higher drag on the blades.

There is no blade expansion, so it is running at low RPM. Meaning it wont get very far very fast. On top of that there little pitch on the blades so there is zero drag on the drive shaft, resulting in far higher RPM. When i spin up my engine in a unloaded configuration it reaches over 60 rad/s and promptly explodes violently. So unless your using KJR, that engine performs poorly. However i commend you for such a low part count engine that works well. I suggest you improve the design until you get something that lifts off. That is absolutely correct, and i redact my statement about that in my previous post. Thank the lord i only visited that briefly @Jon144 Could you please shorten your quote length? So it doesnt take up so much space. We would all appreciate it. Just shorten it to like a single word.

@Jon144 I never said wheel less bearings don't work. I said they're under powered. Try putting that exact engine from your Chinook onto a horizontal airplane. I doubt it will reach 120 m/s if it even gets off the ground. I don't want to make enemies here. I'm just stating facts. Plus, your Chinook is a jet tipped. So it is just taking advantage of leverage rather than torque to make it go and you can't control the throttle from the parent craft. I PERSONALLY don't refer to those as turboprops. Even Azimech said he doesn't either.(can't quote him on that but i remember) Turboprops utilize internal blades and blowers, in a similar layout to a internal combustion engine, and they WORK. Ask Azimech for the definition, as he invented them. On that note, the only reason your bearing IS smaller than ours is because the blowers are outside the engine. It also doesn't move at nearly the same RPM as our turboprops. That's why it is more reliable. If we ran our turboprops at 30 rad/s they would never break. If you ran your engine higher than 30 rad/s it would fall apart. When i say things are under powered i am looking at the concept as a whole. Not specific engines. That being said, there are some engines out there with wheel less bearings that perform exceptionally well, like @sdj64's most recent one. You say you haven't built a bearing that uses wheels since 1.1, when they "broke." They didn't break. I've hardly ever had any problems with the wheels and when i do i can just overcome them with tweaking changing it. I don't understand how you can't do the same. I have been making engines since 1.0.5 and first plane flew AFTER 1.1 launched. So how is it that i am already #2 in the speed department after the guy who's been building them for YEARS and you are stuck building helicopters with jet tipped blades and your wheel less "thing." Wheeled bearings work exceptionally well because they dampen vibrations, have lower design tolerances, and perform better overall. I rarely have bearing failures in flight and when i do it's because i am REALLY pushing the envelope. Just like how they brake in WLBs. They can have lower part count, but so can wheeled bearings. My first engine had 63 parts. Currently the fastest plane(to my knowledge) powered by a WLB was made by @Pds314 It did 237 m/s. That engine alone had 250 parts alone and was slower and heavier than my WB that had 50 less parts, is TONS lighter, and is faster. All of our planes fly fine in a completely stock install, even more reliably. Albeit they are slow. Just like yours. I don't judge the creators of the engines and i absolutely respect all the work you have all put into each of your craft. It's when people come out and say that electric engines or WLBs are better or more reliable than WBs that i feel the need to say something. They are not. Once again, i am not saying my craft is superior to yours just because it is.(tbh Chinook is really cool) I am saying WBs perform better because they ACTUALLY DO.

Oh. Well either way its cool.

Yo your pics are broken

Side note, i found that the rudder doesnt work at all so its more like a floating fortress. Goes fast though. 13 m/s.

http://imgur.com/a/V8j2F I had those originally in that spoiler bar but it seems to have broken itself

I designed this ship as a kinda doorway drug to KSP naval vessels, as i had never made one before. I think it might not quite fit into this series as it looks more like a earth based cruiser. Either way, if you want me to put up a download link i will. As for now i will wait until someone tell me whether it is worthy of being in this series. Has a lot of tiny details that aren't visible in these screenshots, like functional doors and a furnished bridge. Part count is at 713. Side note, it looks tough. But is entirely destroyable. One hit to the very center of the ship split in half lengthwise. If you don't destroy the center command pod which is buried in the hull, it will remain mostly intact except for the section you hit directly. BD weapons work well against the armor but i dont know about conventional weapons. I uses BD cannons and howitzers in place of stock ones to save on parts. Plus these actually work which is cool. I tried to drop bombs on it the other day and got shot down by the aft main cannon. I was surprised to say the least. Has 2 decks total. Upper deck: Bridge and radar room Lower deck: Ammo storage and unused room I wish i could fit something in the main hull but it think it might just mess with the flotation abilities, which is AWESOME by the way, and i don't really know how i would be able to get a Kerbal to move between decks. Might use command pods clipped through the deck.

Does SSRSS really make the seas different at regions parts of the planet?!?!??! If so thats amazing!!!!!! I have it running on my desktop and i thought it just focused on better textures and stuff.Tho i didnt install Sigma Binary so it would be real scale while still having the beautiful benefits of SSRSS. Side note, i am almost done with my battleship thing. Looks OK at best. I am still looking for good examples and building techniques that dont use insane amounts of parts. Its at 713 parts right now. That is mostly in the tiny details though, like how there's 80 parts in just the control panels alone. I uses BD cannons and howitzers in place of stock ones to save on parts. Plus these actually work which is cool. I tried to drop bombs on it the other day and got shot down by the aft main cannon. I was surprised to say the least. Has 2 decks total. Upper deck: Bridge and radar room Lower deck: Ammo storage and unused room I wish i could fit something in the main hull but it think it might just mess with the flotation abilities, which is AWESOME by the way, and i don't really know how i would be able to get a Kerbal to move between decks. Might use command pods clipped through the deck.

I had a ASCII text art thing up a little while ago and a mod removed it ;-;